Author Options:

Pitchforks and denial Answered

I felt an urge to blog.

Though some of you may find the content or tone offensive, I do not apologise.


I enjoy your comments about the recent politicians.

One more thing to add to the growing list of concerns.

Michele Bachmann's husband also runs a camp for "fixing" homosexuality, attempting to convert their sinful lives into ones that are true by god. Using the power of prayer and brainwashing to make them not-so-gay.

There was an article recently from boingboing that featured the disheartening retelling of a young girl who was pushed through one of these gay brainwash camps. It made me ill to think that people actually force their children through these sorts of things.

I really don't want to live in a country where someone in office is affiliated with these activities. At all.

I'm slowly losing hope for the new presidential nominees....

you know what makes me more sad? the people who VOLUNTARILY go to these camps because they've been taught by their "loving parents" that they are broken and can't be loved correctly in their "sinful state"....so they actively choose to put themselves through that ridiculously useless turmoil so that they can somehow convince their own parents that they are worthy of their love.


Sometimes they are abducted in the middle of the night without any idea of what is going on, loaded into the back of a truck, and shipped off until they are fixed.

I really wish I was Angelina Jolie, and had the ability to adopt a million kids, because I'd adopt each one of them, and show them that they are loved for exactly who they are.

Then I'd use her karate skills to beat the living sh** out of each and every one of their parents.

Do you know why people say "Jesus Christ!"?
They mean "Jesus - this isn't what you were talking about is it?!"
Like Bill Hicks suggested, Jesus isn't coming back while people are still wearing crosses around their necks...


People are easier to control if you keep them stupid.
That's what disposable-publications and TV are for...


There's banner up at the Occupy camp in Norwich, which say's "Weapons of mass distraction" around a drawing of a TV.

Norwich? Is Alan Partridge going to turn up...?
I know ex-protesters, there's a whole load of 'em around where I live - very nice people too. My mate Tony demolished Swampy's bus for him....


I was fortunate enough to narrowly-miss a book signing by Alan Partridge in Norwich a couple of weeks ago.

And you missed it?
Without the price of the book that might have been worth it.


Ugh, can't stand the character!

That's how the character works, but we both find him "funny" in a less than humorous way. (The other characters work well around him I find.)
Still, signed merchandise can fetch cash, maybe.


Only if you believe the conspiracy theorists. It's not hard to inform yourself...

"The Truth is out there"

That is the truth as I am looking at it - would you like me to elaborate and inform?


I'm reminded of another saying...

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll only drag you down to their level, and then beat you with greater experience"

It's very worrying that so many people have no good idea of what science IS or how to USE it to understand the world around them. I'd be less concerned if people were making bad decisions based on faulty assumptions if they were truly making THEIR own decisions with any kind of critical process.

What can you do when people deny the evidence that is right in front of their faces?

Dream Dragon, and the most disturbing thing is, I find this trait in all walks of life, believers, nonbelievers, atheists, agnostics, etc. & etc. ad nasium. 

I tried once in a FB forum, to discuss some things in an atheist forum about astrophysics;  they not only did not want to discuss them, but were totally ignorant of anything I wanted to discuss....and that is not even my field of interest, yet I knew more they then did....they "believed" what they had been told, and had no understanding at all about the most BASIC concepts.  None of them had any science knowledge to speak of....so it isn't even that they deny reality, they don't even KNOW about reality.

I have to say I am so torqued by the latest trends.....but not overly surprised.

I have been reading up on how easily it is to "trick" the mind into seeing what is not there, seeing what is there but not how it "really is", into not seeing what is there, and into seeing what it believes is there.   It is FASCINATING to see just how EASY this is and just how hard it can be to correct at times.

It's the "hard to correct" bit that is going to be a problem.

You'll be aware of the Jesuit comment along the lines of "give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man" - the vast majority of children do not encounter the scientific, evidence-based world-view until they are 10 or 11 years old, and, in a year, only a few hours of their entire schooling is focused on the topics that directly counter the anti-science views.


"Give me a dozen healthy infants ... and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors."

"The quotation is of course reminiscent of the claimed Jesuit maxim: "give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man" (Loyola, 1557), but as my partner points out, what is the Jesuits' record on pre-school education? Typical male view, she says!"

- John Watson

Jesuits may have been the first, but certainly not the only or the last, to express that sentiment. People tend to believe the things they were raised to believe (they CAN choose to believe other things, it's just not the tendency). It speaks more to the nature of child development than to the evil intentions of theists.

I am a good example LR, raised Evangelical, I still believe in a "higher power", it may be intelligent, but it resemble the theistic god about as much as a candle resembles dark matter. I am not knocking theism, deism, nor pantheism, just stating that, over the course of time and my noting of the multiple times funies have to "put out fires" with whatever they say, it steered me in the direction of taking on what I can demonstrate above what I "choose" to believe in.

I was around 13 - 14 when my questions got so irritating to "pastors" that they loathed my presence.  :-)

No, I know you aren't. And I'm not attempting to defend a particular position, either. The only point I am making is that to teach *anything* to a child as a definitive truth is at some level an indoctrination, an attempt to modify their internal natural ontology. And that's not necessarily a bad thing! All positions cannot be correct and it does not make sense to literally view everything as relative, much less teach a child that way. I definitely advocate mandatory science education and definitely definitely definitely do not advocate mandatory religious education.

But I think it's important to recognize that the difference is one of content.

It is important to teach basics, logic, skepticism, etc. Test, prove, inquire.....once these are learned and practiced, one need not indocterate anymore, in either case.

You wrote:  it does not make sense to literally view everything as relative...

I agree, I discuss some things on Facebook with a young lady that almost always falls back on that "thought" so she doesn't have to accept anything "real". 

The idea may be one of content, but it is only in the sense that we also do not teach that water "at one time" ran up hill, that the sun is only 6 K years old, etc etc.   

BTW, when I typed funies, I meant funDies  ;-)

seconded (and thirded at the same time...i'll fourth it if i have to)...once you teach the tools of the scientific method (logic, skepticism, how to test theories etc...) indoctrination is no longer required at all.

Indoctrination requires teaching something as absolute truth without question. No actual knowledge should ever be forcefed to anyone. if that knowledge has the strength of having already been tested time and time again, and the tests keep coming up in favor of the item being fact, then you don't have to remove the privilege of skepticism from your method of teaching the item.

And by "forced" I include along with threats (physical or mental), any form of coercion. I have heard snorts, growls, and laughs when the subject of evolution comes up for instance, and just THESE are enough to make some people not want to question the "6 day creation" story.

BUT, as I mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with me wanting to educate those that want to be educated, but trying to convince someone of something they refuse to even entertain because their beliefs blind them to it, is like teaching a pig to sing.   It wastes my time and annoys the pig. 

So, I have to learn to allow pigs to be pigs, cows to be cows, horses to be horses, and the few of us that make any attempt at rising above "reacting only";   to be themselves too.   To those, I want to converse....as I am tired of the squealing noises ;-)

What happens when the farmer demands you squeal along with the herd?

All I meant was the comparative level of influence. The child of any denier of reality* does not get exposed to anything that contradicts that view until years later, and to very little active contradiction thereafter.

*Reality is not always denied on religious grounds.

Ah, I get you.

It seems to me that it's probably mostly a lost cause to do anything but try to affect the up-and-coming (or next) generation.

I try, but sometimes articles like that I blogged about make me feel a little like King Cnut...

In what way? In that he has little recorded history, his alliance with the church (teasing with that one), or what?

I have found two versions of the myth (two MAIN versions) one where he believed he could stop the tide and one, like this one here, where only those that flattered him thought he could.   I had not heard of either before this,  however. :-)

It's the first that most Brits are aware of, although the more-true version was that he did it to prove that he could not do it, because even the king is less than God.

Apparently, there is a North-South divide in the interpretation of that one - even after a 1000 years - those of us with more Viking believe the one where he accepted he couldn't turn the tide.


I am, as I see it, agreeing with your interpretation.

It is so sad, in a way, it was good that I was left "to my own devices" (although brought up in an Evangelical church, I was able to form my own "questions" and realize that they had "no answers" that made sense.

What made it sad, was that, by the time i was 12-14 the science teachers didn't have any better answers. When challenged, they had no defenses....it just torques me that this is the case. 

A friend of mine (although he is a fundie) took training for being a male nurse, and confuted HIS biology teacher in college on evolution.  That just killed me.  Even the "educated ones" don't have the tools I had as a 16 year old to demonstrate what was real and what wasn't.  *shakes head*

I have given up on the codependent idea that I can save the world, or ANYONE from their beliefs.  BUT if one of them wants to discuss them, then I am always ready (I talked with one fellow who "interprets" the genomal evidence "differently" - oy vey !)